For , director of the Fedil business federation, the European Commission’s announcements on Wednesday 26 February are a step in the right direction--in the direction of reason. “We need to look at where we've come from. Over the last five years, many good intentions have created a veritable administrative monster. We needed to redress the balance. The commission has achieved this without abandoning its environmental and social ambitions. By lightening the administrative burden, it is seeking to move in the right direction, an ambition that businesses share.”
He added: “The various concrete measures proposed show that our messages have been heard and that the commission should be taken seriously when it talks about reducing the administrative and regulatory framework.”
The form and substance of the regulation that has been put in place in recent years was unrealistic.
Simplification, yes, but not deregulation. When asked if we shouldn’t be talking about deregulation rather than simplification, Winkin answers without hesitation: “No.” He explains: “The opponents of deregulation are not in favour of simplification. Opponents of the project will talk about deregulation. From my point of view, the regulation put in place in recent years, in both form and substance, was unrealistic. Too many obligations have been imposed on companies indiscriminately. And to think that from Europe we could change the world was an extreme position. All the more so because, economically speaking, Europe is becoming marginalised--a fact that has become abundantly clear in recent months. Today, Europe is refocusing on the essentials. What is being proposed now is achievable. Let’s observe the effects of these measures and adjust if necessary. This simplification was inevitable.”
While he welcomes the announcements relating to the Omnibus Directive--“measures that will enable us to return to the path of productivity and growth”--Winkin has more reservations about the Green Industry Deal and the action plan for affordable energy. He regrets a lack of concrete action, particularly on major issues such as integrating the cost of CO2 at borders for imports and exports, an essential condition for establishing a genuine level playing field between producers. “We assume that the commission will present ambitious proposals by the end of the year.”
Winkin also expects courage on the issue of state aid linked to the cost of electricity: “This is where the success of our energy transition will depend.”
The real problem is the difference in standards within the EU itself
Opponents of the European Commission’s project will speak of deregulation, as Winkin said. This is the term used by MEP (LSAP/S&D) and quaestor of the institution. “I am very worried. We are facing a wave of deregulation that does not say its name. After the initial announcements of the von der Leyen 2 commission, we were worried. Our fears have now been realised.”
“The directive on corporate responsibility for sustainability (CSDDD) has not yet been implemented, and it is already being amended,” he laments. “With all the progress made by artificial intelligence, is social reporting really still a problem?”
Angel is not opposed to simplifying the administrative burden. But, in his view, the commission has missed its target. “To move towards less bureaucracy, we need more European standards and fewer national standards. The real problem is the difference in standards within the EU itself. Large companies can cope with this, they have the resources. SMEs can’t.”
We are faced with a purely political decision, taken to please the far right.
MEP (déi Gréng/Greens/EFA) has expressed her misgivings about the European Commission’s simplification policy, which she sees as a deregulation that is not being accepted. “We are faced with a purely political decision, taken to please the far right. Instead of building on our social and sustainable European model, the majority supporting Ursula von der Leyen is opting for deregulation. That’s not the future.”
“It is clear that the commission has made the choice to no longer support a European industry that was at the forefront of social and environmental rights and leading the way.” Metz deplores the fact that 90% of companies--“and not 80% as the commission maintains”--are no longer subject to the directives on corporate sustainability due diligence (CSDDD) and sustainability reporting (CSRD).
She also regrets that the duty of care is being drastically reduced, now concerning only the last supplier and not the entire value chain, and that taxonomy is becoming an option. “The duty of care was the most commendable and ambitious piece of European legislation. It could have been a game changer at global level.”
I agree to simplify what can be simplified as long as the substance is not called into question.
For (DP/Renew), “at first glance” the commission’s reaction is relevant. “Faced with the decline of the European economy, it had to be done. It is also on this line of conduct of defending the economy that I voted for this commission. It now remains to be seen whether the objectives of the Green Deal are called into question. I agree to simplify what can be simplified as long as the substance is not called into question. I do not believe so, but let’s get on with parliamentary work to separate the wheat from the chaff.”
More broadly, Goerens advocates that sufficient simulation of its impacts be conducted upstream of legislation, “which was not the case here.” And as for the duty of vigilance, he believes that the commission is not playing its full role. Indeed, with its network of representation throughout the world, it is somewhere on the front line to draw the attention of companies to the realities of the world of work in many countries.
This article was originally published in .